A Great Day For Freedom (Updated)

Back on May 29, Judge C.J. Vaughey of District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County signed a peace order against attorney Aaron Walker, preventing him from writing anything about convicted Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin. For more on that incident, go here. For more on Kimberlin, go here.

Today both parties were back in court in front of Appellate Judge Nelson Rupp. This time, Walker was represented by attorney Reginald Bours.

Kimberlin made a number of statements, but his basic argument boiled down to Walker wanted to encourage people to blog about Kimberlin to incite others to harass him and send him death threats. As evidence, Kimberlin again had pages of Twitter feeds and blog posts.

This time, though, Judge Rupp did something extraordinary that Judge Vaughey did not. He actually looked at the evidence Kimberlin presented. After looking at them, Rupp declared, “I see nothing in here that threatens you personally.”

Exactly. But then there was an exchange that says it all, as Bours questions perjurer and convicted Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin (emphasis mine):

Then Bours asked Kimberlin about Walker’s recent “swatting” experience, in which someone posing as Walker called the police saying that Walker had shot his wife (see here.) Specifically, Bours asked Kimberlin if he’d had anything to do with it or was aware of anyone who did.

That definitely got under Kimberlin’s skin. His voice rose in anger as he denounced the implication as a “despicable smear.”

[Added:] More sunlight on Kimberlin and Rauhauser from the Washington Times, who characterized Kimberlin’s legal loss as a “humiliating defeat.”

Yesterday, Kimberlin, accompanied by his associate in legal, digital, psychological, and political terror, Neal Rauhauser, vainly tried to keep the current order in effect. Under that order Aaron Walker was prohibited from writing anything about Brett Kimberlin for six months. The order was stayed last week. It was scheduled for final disposition.

Unlike the judge who issued the original order, the presiding judge actually knew something about the First Amendment. He vacated the order.

As an interesting side note, Brett Kimberlin considered being cross examined by Mr. Walker’s attorney as harassment.

It is par for the course, expected, that Kimberlin would see cross-examination in court as harrassment. It is his M.O.:

The whole object of lawfare is to modify or adjust behavior by abusing the legal system. It is legal terrorism and torture. A “pro se litigant forces critics into expensive, long distance, lengthy, discovery laden litigation. The reality of travel, or frightful expenses, or summary judgments needs to be made real. We probably need to make a very visible example of at least one of them before the rest understand.” (Neal Rauhauser)

Kimberlin uses volleys of unsubstantiated accusations to prey upon his victims through the court system. In effect he accuses the accuser.

It is evident whatever is being reported, exposed, or criticized is true, as Kimberlin does not sue for libel, defamation, or slander.

The object is to silence criticism, exposure, speech, and the media by any and all means necessary. This is criminally dangerous. It threatens the whole concept of free press, free speech, and free expression.